3 ms·

I'll have to think about your comment for a bit. I'd like to retract the "lack of interest in exploring new things" part. Firstly, because I was really wrong:

I'll have to think about your comment for a bit. I'd like to retract the "lack of interest in exploring new things" part. Firstly, because I was really wrong: plenty of new things are being worked on. Secondly, because not everyone can have a strong EE/CS background and push the state of the art. And ham radio is quite a technical hobby even at a basic level. Also, sorry for sounding so negative. I do recognize that ham radio is a hobby and people find contesting fun. I don't find contesting useful, but I know that's not the entire point and I see yours. However: engineering is also about solving problems right, whereas much of ham radio is about doing what seems to work. And contests let you use your station, not test it well.

grandalf 11y ago
> contests let you use your station, not test it well. There are different dimensions to station testing. Contesters usually attempt to maximize the communications path with a wide geographical area. Since other stations are often using fairly poor antennas and low power, a contest station usually has high gain antennas and legal limit amplifiers... Asymmetric communications channels are just part of the game. A contest station that is S9 to you might be barely copyable somewhere else in the world. So there is antenna strategy (gain, rotatability, radiation angle, polarization). Not to mention tower placement, tower loading, inter-station interference, etc. There is also operator strategy... things like rate maximization, multiplier maximization (moving multipliers, being aware of band openings and propagation conditions, etc.). Not to mention fatigue, sleep strategy, when to eat, use the restroom, etc. The ergonomics of radio and computer interfaces (screens, knobs, CW paddles, antenna switches, headphones, etc.) are all areas for optimization. When you look at the composition of the team who wrote N1MM logger, it's a bunch of people who have had all sorts of high caliber software careers, including NASA. There are so many brilliant people who for the sake of fun and competitive spirit advance the state of the art. So yes, contesting serves no purpose (though it's conceivable that if something happened the mainstream communications grid we'd be glad such stations existed). But no sport serves a purpose, nor does any art. Contesting is both.

grandalf 11y ago

> contests let you use your station, not test it well. There are different dimensions to station testing. Contesters usually attempt to maximize the communications path with a wide geographical area. Since other stations are often using fairly poor antennas and low power, a contest station usually has high gain antennas and legal limit amplifiers... Asymmetric communications channels are just part of the game. A contest station that is S9 to you might be barely copyable somewhere else in the world. So there is antenna strategy (gain, rotatability, radiation angle, polarization). Not to mention tower placement, tower loading, inter-station interference, etc. There is also operator strategy... things like rate maximization, multiplier maximization (moving multipliers, being aware of band openings and propagation conditions, etc.). Not to mention fatigue, sleep strategy, when to eat, use the restroom, etc. The ergonomics of radio and computer interfaces (screens, knobs, CW paddles, antenna switches, headphones, etc.) are all areas for optimization. When you look at the composition of the team who wrote N1MM logger, it's a bunch of people who have had all sorts of high caliber software careers, including NASA. There are so many brilliant people who for the sake of fun and competitive spirit advance the state of the art. So yes, contesting serves no purpose (though it's conceivable that if something happened the mainstream communications grid we'd be glad such stations existed). But no sport serves a purpose, nor does any art. Contesting is both.